Probe into lawyer killing lawful

Mark Saunders shot at police officers with a shotgun

An independent inquiry into the killing of a barrister shot dead by police during a five-hour armed siege was lawful, the High Court has ruled.

A judge dismissed a claim by the family of Mark Saunders, 32, that the probe into his death was unlawful.

But the judge did raise questions about the police practice of allowing the officers involved to confer.

The judge granted the Saunders family leave to appeal, possibly in order to address the issue in a higher court.

Mr Saunders died in a stand-off at his flat in Chelsea, west London in May.

BBC crime reporter Ben Ando said Mr Justice Underhill acknowledged that permitting officers to collaborate before they gave their statements meant "the opportunity for collusion is, so to speak, institutionalised".

The judge said the practice was "highly vulnerable" to challenge under the Human Rights Act, but also said that in this case "...prohibiting collaboration would have been likely to hinder rather than promote an effective investigation."

Charlotte Saunders said the balance of power seemed wrong

Mr Saunders' family had said the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPPC) inquiry was unlawful as the officers were allowed to confer.

The IPCC said it welcomed the High Court's judgement.

"The IPCC agrees with Mr Saunders' family that the way officers currently confer after a fatal shooting does not provide best evidence or secure public confidence and should change," said an IPCC spokesman.

"We differed only on how that change should be achieved."

During the siege Mr Saunders fired at police officers, neighbours and buildings with a legally-owned shotgun from his £2.2m home in Markham Square.

'Insulting, inaccurate'

A post-mortem examination revealed that he died from multiple injuries.

His family believes he posed no risk to the public when he was shot, as the area had been evacuated.

Mr Saunders' sister Charlotte said: "I brought these proceedings because I was concerned that the police officers who shot Mark were allowed to confer before giving their accounts to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)."

The police denied the family's central claim that conferring mounted to collusion.

"Conferring is not colluding," said Paul Davis, of the Police Federation.

"To suggest otherwise is as insulting as it is inaccurate and does nothing to reassure members of the public that the police are there to defend and protect them. There is a huge difference between colluding and conferring."